Seems like it's been fashionable lately to make outrageous statements about evolutionary theory, but I have yet to see anyone propose an alternative theory. So, here's your chance. Does anyone have a scientifically valid alternative theory that can be supported by evidence?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

I suppose there could be some merit to panspermia, at least on a sub-cellular level. I remember reading once that it might be possible for amino acids to form naturally in certain nebulae. Not sure how much merit there is to that idea, but if it's true, it could have contributed to the development of life on earth. Anyway, you're right that with no hard evidence, it's hard to give any credence to the idea.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Yeah, i struggle with exogenesis, what other entries are there into our planet other than a meteorite? And to survive in space it would need to be a chemotroph or something, but even then it doesn't have most material available that our current organisms use - water,co2,o2 etc. Even if it did survive that, it would either burn up or fall off and begin floating down our atmosphere(which would take a long long time) only to be burnt up by out UV rays. I don't see how its possible for spores etc to go through space without being ionized also. Nevertheless i suppose there is a chance.

A wise man once said to me:"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Well let me give some--well maybe evidence of something that an evolutionist would never look for.

You know I was watching the discovery channel the other day and I really saw it! Folds, uncracked bends in sedimentary rock, quite large bends. Wonder how they bent without cracking--they're not ignious, they were sedimentary. This is kind of common I hear.

Of course this supposedly happened over millions of years, but how did all of that sediment follow the vertical contours, seems like it would level out by gravity. Kind of seems like it was laid wet and then thrust upward. We are talking 12 feet of 3 or 4 strata coming out of the crust. No telling how thick the fold actually was.

I want to go to the Grand Canyon where there are 90 degree bends in the strata uncracked, oh yes, and thousands of nautiloids, canyon length, in the Redwall Limestone of GC. They are found in the same stratra as far as Las Vegas! They are all in the same strata and are believed to be a mass kill. You know that many nautiloids would have had to be covered quickly by rapidly moving sediment. 15 % of the nautiloids are vertical. Maybe some early cave men stuck them in the sand--not. Anyway, none of this would contradict a catastrophic flood. This is not the only evidence for the truly open minded. Check out Dr. Steven Austin and his research at Grand Canyon Mt. St. Helens , and Yosimite.

Just one last thought, I found something the other day.

The structure of many belts is complex. Their stratigraphic successions are upside-down and deformed by thrusts and major horizontal folds (nappes).

How are the stratigraphic successions upside down? They are kind of without explanation here but I'm assuming theyr'e out of order with the evolutionary textbooks. I have heard other geologists say this--that not everything out there in the field is so clean cut like the geologic timescale would suggest. Note that again it speaks of folds.

There's another one that's been pretty solidly disproven. So far no one has actually provided a workable theory. Panspermia fails, as FZ demonstrated, and spontaneous generation went out over a century ago. AFJ seems to be obsessed with geology, which has very little to do with biological theories. Are we to infer from this that there is no alternative theory to evolution? Hm . . .

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Sediment always lays flat, when there are bends in strata it is usually from magma which has worked its way up through the crust(and formed batholiths etc.) or tectonic movement(+ pressure from above earth), both of these generate heat which allows for bending without cracking, so these bent strata are in fact to a certain degree metamorphic. It is a really intriguing subject, one which would be my second/third career choice(after zoologist[don't ask me which type yet] and astrobiologist[yeah, wish me luck]).

Are we to infer from this that there is no alternative theory to evolution? Hm . . .

Poor evolution must be getting a bit lonely.

A wise man once said to me:"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Elements of Lamarkism have found their way back into the modern evolutionary theory we have today, so I guess that alters the original theory somewhat. The influence of genes and how the environment interacts with their expression is adding to the theory as we go. The truth is that because Darwin never roundly pronounced his theory to be indisputable it means that evidence that arise can usually be fitted in. Such as his prediction that a missing link between ancient ape and man may be found although no remains existed at the time (up until the discovery of Lucy). The truth is that I havn't found any cohesive argument against evolution without implying a creator or intelligent design! Guess thats a sign of a strong theory.

Good points, Blacksun, although I'm not too familiar with modern-day Lamarkism. I do wonder how the newly-discovered field of epigenetics might shape our understanding of inheritance, though. Part of the fun of science is that our theories are always changing as our understanding grows and develops.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.